6 ms·

This sounds interesting. As a bit of constructive criticism, please put some examples high up. You tell me it does cool things. Great, show me. I've looked abo

• suchow 11y ago
  Good idea. If you run `proselint` without specifying a document, it'll run on the demo text, which you can also access here: https://gist.github.com/suchow/c7856f21128aee89ad55 https://gist.github.com/suchow/c7856f21128aee89ad55. Also, there's a live demo available at: http://proselint.com/write http://proselint.com/write. It's been tested only on the latest version of Chrome, and I doubt it will handle the load here, but give it a try.
• Vivtek 11y ago
  This would catch something like "even more unique". In fact, looking at the code (https://github.com/amperser/proselint/blob/master/proselint/checks/wallace/uncomparables.py https://github.com/amperser/proselint/blob/master/proselint/...) it would even catch something like "extremely unique", which I've been guilty of using. But yes, there should be examples on the front page.
  • joosters 11y ago
    So this program is like having some insufferable pedants arguing over your language? Great! Does it accept 'nearly unique' ?
    • debacle 11y ago
      It accepts "kind of unique" and "hardly unique" but also "greatly unique" which in my mind is very close to "very unique." This tool is a blunt instrument. Writing is an art.
      • johnny4000 11y ago
        What exactly is the argument or implication in the last two sentences? There are many works of art that use "blunt" instruments. Say the Venus of Willendorf or a Serra sculpture, though that depends on what you mean by blunt. Even in literature blunt tools are use such as a pencil.
  • conceit 11y ago
    So, I think english is an "analytical language", although I wouldn't know what it means, it inspires me to assume, that by analyszing the sentence you can make out that extremely could refer to something else than the uniqueness, isn't it? EG the phrase could mean, something was unique because of one of any number of extremes, unique by extremity. Sure, that should be uniquely extreme, but what I said shows something else. If there are different qualities that could be unique, wouldn't it make sense to quantify that? Of course, if a logic is so weak it cannot have the peano axioms, you cannot advance beyond uniqueness. (What about missing all-quantor in propositional logic and uniqueness in predicate logic? I'm just stabbing in the dark, really.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11239261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11239261
• SixSigma 11y ago
  One cannot have gradations of uniqueness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdZtM3_Lcy4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdZtM3_Lcy4
  • conceit 11y ago
    Imagine an object that is unique in exactly one respect, and another in two. Obviously, the other has more uniqueness. Now, if a the first has precisely only the one characteristic of having not really any characteristic at all, then that's a totally different degree of uniqueness. So either is more unique in a specific respect. But Arguably, the nothingness is most unique, if not the only really unique thing. So if we can ignore that, because no one in his right mind would talk about nothing, we can most of always readily conclude, that the first type of a collection of unique'ish things is concerned. Is this regression ad absurdum or argumentum ad silencium?
    • SixSigma 11y ago
      I like your thinking. The link I posted really concerns the insufferability of someone who corrects technicalities of language rather than a discussion on whether uniqueness is a countable property.
• shawabawa3 11y ago
  Some people feel you should never ever say things like "more unique", "most unique" etc Which I think is equally as misguided as trying to force "data" to be plural, and that "less than 3" is wrong
  • amelius 11y ago
    In a mathematical context, something is either "unique" or it is not. There is no in-between state. But you can easily define it to mean something else. And you can even make "uniqueness" comparable.
    • nimish 11y ago
      It's a good thing then that most people don't use it in its technical sense An easy fix for this not problem is to use distinct instead of unique
    • Jedd 11y ago
      Curiously (but perhaps only to me) all things are comparable - able to be compared. If you mean similar, may I commend the word similar? ;-)
    • stared 11y ago
      In a mathematical world you operate with abstract objects. In the real word - you need to abstract things; before that everything is unique; after that - well, depends on your abstraction. So unless you talk about mathematics, things can be more or less unique.
      • MawNicker 11y ago
        This is a excellent and subtle comment. You seem like someone with a tolerance for philosophical nit-picking. Please forgive me if I'm mistaken. Instead of saying everything is unique we could simply say that there is nothing. A thing is itself an abstraction. The concrete world is without inherently distinct things. We must abstract things for "unique" to describe something at all. As you implied, this process is arbitrary. Every way in which you could abstract things implies a distinct notion of "uniqueness". To simply select one "uniqueness" (like mathematics) is arbitrary. But to consider every possible "uniqueness" equally is also arbitrary. Without prioritizing forms of "uniqueness" we can only construct a partially ordered set. So when you void a fixation on mathematics, things can be more, less or "incomparably" unique. I suspect most pairs of things are incomparably unique. Further, I suspect most binary qualities are predominantly incomparable. I don't know that you should never say things like "more unique" but it might be fair to issue a warning in a prose linter. Any binary quality used as a continuum requires an arbitrary combination of it's distinct forms. If this isn't specified then it only has meaning for those who already know what it is.